The Post-Paris China Syndrome

I’m beginning to think that President Trump’s wise decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord has induced a new strain of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS): The Post-Paris China Syndrome (PPCS) Two Real Clear Energy articles are the perfect examples of PPCS:

Which Top 3 Polluter Dominates Wind And Solar?

By Zainab Calcuttawala – Jun 12, 2017, 12:40 PM CDT

China, the United States, and India are the most prolific greenhouse gas emitters in the world – in that order. To prevent the earth’s temperatures from rising by 2 degrees Celsius, those three key players will need to begin adopting renewables en masse.

Longtime followers of energy sector news will remember a time just a few years ago when China could now be considered a viable leader for the anti-climate change movement due to its voracious coal diet.
But the nation’s coal consumption has been in free fall since 2013…

[…]

Firstly, I think there was a typo in this sentence:

Longtime followers of energy sector news will remember a time just a few years ago when China could now not be considered a viable leader for the anti-climate change movement due to its voracious coal diet.

I corrected it in red font. Correction notwithstanding, the only way in which Red China will be a “viable leader for the anti-climate change movement,” is as a profit center. The ChiCom’s will be more than happy to sell all the solar panels that the rest of the world desires to purchase.

According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Red China’s coal consumption has declined slightly since 2013… However, “free fall” doesn’t appear to be an apt description. The ChiCom coal diet remains more voracious than the rest of the world combined.

The National Geographic reports a 35 GW increase in solar power capacity – equivalent to Germany’s entire power supply – in just 2016.

Well… The National Geographic got the 35 GW right; however, according to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Germany had over 41 GW of solar capacity at the end of 2016 and generated over 648 TWh of electricity in 2016. If Red China’s 35 GW of solar power capacity operated at a 100% capacity factor, it wouldn’t even generate half of Germany’s entire power supply in 2016. I am assuming that Ms. Calcuttawala means generation, not capacity, by the phrase “power supply.”

Now back to Ms. Calcuttawala for her utterly shocking (NOT!) conclusion:

China’s communist regime controls domestic wealth and resources, so any nationwide campaign to go green must be recognized and sanctioned by Beijing.

Evaluating the U.S.’ Dedication to planet Earth is a little trickier though.

[…]

Federalism sees the virtue in allowing states and cities to be laboratories of democracy. Leading the development of international green policy, however, requires strong political will at the federal level – which the U.S. lacks.

If only this nation was a Marxist dictatorship, like Red China, we would gladly “make the United States the cleanest Third World country on Earth” (h/t Dr. Roy Spencer) in a Quixotic global anti-climate change movement. After slaying climate change, we could then lead the world in a crusade (or jihad, if you prefer) against plate tectonics and entropy!

The second article was not quite so much a target-rich environment for ridicule; but it did include one very large target:

How Trump’s COP21 Promise Became China’s Opportunity

By Rob Edens
June 13, 2017

The world was waiting with baited breath to see what Donald Trump would do with the Paris climate agreement, but the reasons that ultimately drove him to abandon it are overwhelmingly domestic. As a candidate, his energy platform centered on the ideas that emissions reductions efforts hurt the American economy, “kill jobs”, and weaken the country’s energy security. After months of deliberation, the now-president decided there is no way to reconcile those “America First” policies with climate commitments that dictate terms to the US energy industry.

It must have come as a surprise, then, when fossil fuel companies came together to lobby the Trump White House not to tear up the pact. A pro-Paris alliance that included Cheniere Energy, Exxon Mobil, and even coal companies like Cloud Peak and Peabody pleaded with the Trump administration in support of the agreement before he decided to withdraw.

[…]

Pleaded? No. Some companies did state that they thought it would be good for business to “keep a seat at the table” because they were concerned that the G-7 Climate Bully might isolate the United States and harm U.S. coal, petroleum and natural gas exports. This turned out to be an even more mythical fear than CAGW.

Now, on to the very large target:

With the US out of the Paris Accords, developing nations are set to lose the billions Washington would have contributed to the Green Climate Fund. With that windfall now off the table, these countries will probably expand their reliance on their natural resources (such as coal), hoping to obtain the Western technology to develop it – currently, only the U.S., Canada and Norway have large-scale CCS projects in operation.

Mr. Edens then babbles a bit about coal mining companies not being able to export carbon sequestration technology to Third World hellholes… (Maybe the article was more target-rich than I originally thought.)

So… Red China now has an opportunity to what? Pick up the tab for “the billions Washington would have contributed to the Green Climate Fund”? I doubt it.

The ChiCom’s were probably banking on the United States borrowing more money from them, to give to Third World tin horn dictators, so they could buy Red Chinese solar panels, wind turbines and thermal power plants.

This brings us to a lucid article by former Iraq WMD inspector Scott Ritter:

An Indispensable Truth

June 2017 Scott Ritter

President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change, and his earlier failure, during last month’s Nato summit in Brussels, to reaffirm the collective security arrangements set forth in Article 5 of the alliance’s charter, have given the world a first real taste of America’s new isolationism. While the US’ position as the world’s “indispensable nation” has been in decline for decades, Trump’s actions, a clear manifestation of his policy of “America First,” underline the uncomfortable reality that the world remains incapable of providing any viable option to American leadership.

[…]

As currently configured, both Nato and the Paris Agreement place the US at an economic disadvantage to those with whom they are in supposed agreement — Europe in Nato, India and China in the Paris Agreement. In both cases, American leadership is being paid for by the American taxpayer, and is as such unsustainable, given the political realities of Trump’s presidency, under which the notion of exceptionalism has been superseded by a more transactional concept of fairness, not least in the view of those who elected him.

From Trump’s perspective, Article 5 cannot be blindly endorsed without recognition among Nato members of their funding commitments under Article 3. In the context of the Paris Agreement, Trump believes that greenhouse emission controls must be more equitably spread out among the world’s economies in a manner that does not unduly disadvantage the US.

Trump’s actions have, in fact, reinforced the notion of the US was the world’s “indispensable nation.” The idea of Germany, France, the UK and other Nato members trying to fund a collective defense capability without the US is laughable — the economic costs would be orders of magnitude greater than the 2% GDP being demanded by Trump, while the political cost would be unbearable. Likewise, America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will require the rest of the world to either fix it, or watch it dissolve.

The US has, both in terms of its military and economic capabilities, since been in gradual decline since the end of the Cold War. But this decline has not been accompanied by any parallel ascendancy of note on the part of the rest of the world, either individually or collectively. America remains indispensable on the world stage, largely because there is no one ready, willing or able to stand in its place. The international community has been confronted with the reality of Trump’s negotiating strategy, founded as it is on the notion that one should never enter into a negotiation one is not willing to walk away from. Trump has walked away. How the rest of the world responds will offer a true measure of the current state of American exceptionalism, and American indispensability.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer whose service over a 20-plus-year career included tours of duty in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control agreements, serving on the staff of US General Norman Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War, and later as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq from 1991-98.

The international community has been confronted with the reality of Trump’s negotiating strategy, founded as it is on the notion that one should never enter into a negotiation one is not willing to walk away from. Trump has walked away. How the rest of the world responds will offer a true measure of the current state of American exceptionalism, and American indispensability.

“One should never enter into a negotiation one is not willing to walk away from.” This is the heart of “the art of the deal.” (From 2009-2016, the U.S. government operated antithetically to this principle.)

President Reagan walked away from Reykjavik and won the Cold War. President Trump walked away from Paris and will win the war against the Warmunists (anti-climate change movement) because he believes in American exceptionalism and understands that we still are the only indispensable nation.

Nuclear power in the US is about 93% available. Refueling every 18 months or so, turbine maintenance, etc, most of which is planned to happen in spring and fall when demand is minimum. But I get your point.

That’s a worthy point you make, Dan, but (FWIW) I think what is meant is that nuke is up ~100% of the time when it’s actually in service and being depended upon. Solar and wind also must be put out for service now and then – everyone gets that everything mechanical and/or electrical needs periodic servicing. However, solar and wind don’t put out much of the time even when they are IN SERVICE, and that I think is the point being made.

No, but as numerous documents make clear and the slow pace of Senate approvals makes easier, the action on implementing the UN’s 2030 agenda was more in the Dignity for All by 2030 and Habitat III documents. Julian Castro began implemnting the Habitat III agenda through HUD in 2014. Do you really think anyone has laid that all out to Ben Carson?

Or China has already saturated the market with coal power? All depends on how you spin it.

China is currently building more coal plants than it needs and in doing so is misallocating capital at an unprecedented rate. As of July 2016, China has 895 GW of existing coal capacity being used less than half of the time – and perversely has 205 GW under construction and another 405 GW of capacity planned, with a total overnight capital cost of half a trillion US dollars. This misallocation of capital is a microcosm of wider structural woes within the Chinese economy. China’s rapid economic growth, demographic profile and geographical size has meant it often made sense for the government to build power infrastructure first and ask questions later. The days when China could grow at a fast pace by accumulating capital, safe in the knowledge that this capital would achieve high returns, appear to be over.

China’s coal power investments have reached an important juncture: keep pouring capital into increasingly unviable projects and put the financial system under additional pressure from the risk of large-scale defaults, or stop investing and promote efficiency. As power demand growth slows from a historical average of 10% to 3% or less per year, the coal capacity in the pipeline, as well as some existing coal capacity, risks becoming stranded due to low carbon capacity targets, ongoing reforms in the power sector and carbon pricing.

Build far more capacity than you need.
Sell cheap energy to the neigbours.
Make them dependent on said cheap power.
Use that as a political lever to get them to do what you want in any disputes.
ie Let us expand our territory to those disputed islands, or we turn the power off, and your economy collapses.

Who is China selling power to?
N. Koreans? Don’t need it. Couldn’t use it even if it was free.
Russia and the various Stans? Very low population in those areas. No leverage for blackmail.
Vietnam? Most of the population is too far from the Chinese border.
The rest of the countries are either to small or too poor.

David, being a frequent reader of oil.com, Ms Calcuttawala’s articles could provide you a similar post in WUWT weekly. I feel better informed than several regular posters there who seem to have a superficial view of energy issues.
However, it does seem that a lot of people are offended by Mr Trump’s very logical decision, without really knowing why. Most are unaware of the Bjorn Lomborg type analysis, and therefore may support the kind of drivel she has written.

With respect to Ms. Calcuttawala’s article – you can always spot an energy illterate when they confuse power levels, expressed as either Terrawatts, Gigawatts, Megawatts, or KiloWatts, with
amounts of power (Terrawatthours, gigawatthours, etc) and when they confuse an energy generator’s nameplate capacity (max power output capability) with its actual, output capability
(capacity – 0 to 100%). She also must have conveniently missed the Chinese govt recent statement that they are banning further wind turbine input because of its de-stabilizing effect on the grid and its high cost.

When advising a true believer that the production of windmill turbines in China left large areas heavily contaminated with heavy metals and destroyed agriculture, the reply was
‘well it will only get better.’
Once one ‘knows’ that CO2 is evil then anything goes.
The Irish always want to keep pushing.
When you get resistance back off for a while, you may have sense in a while.

Well, increased vegetation means that more CO2 will be used for plant food and more oxygen will be released into the air. People might benefit. We can’t have that. Damn the continent. Save the movement..

Also your correction in red (replacing “now” with “not”) is incorrect. She’s trying to say (very poorly!) that China was a leader in the anti-Global Warming movement based on their dramatic increase in the use of coal. She’s inferring that China is now a leader in the CAGW movement because they have reduced coal usage and installed huge amounts of solar energy generation.

I highly doubt that China is concerned about climate change and their contributions to global CO2 levels. They are concerned with increasing their electricity generation capabilities and their ability to profit off the CAGW hysteria.

Longtime followers of energy sector news will remember a time just a few years ago when China could now be considered a viable leader for the anti-climate change movement due to its voracious coal diet.

A few years ago, China could not be considered a viable leader for the anti-climate change movement due to its voracious coal diet.

According to Calcuttawala, China can now be considered a viable leader for the anti-climate change movement due their abandonment (free fall) of coal since 2013 and massive deployment of solar power in 2016.

Setting aside the idiocy of her statement, my correction of it, is the only way it makes grammatical sense.

Regarding the comparison to Germany, she wrote:

The National Geographic reports a 35 GW increase in solar power capacity – equivalent to Germany’s entire power supply – in just 2016.

Capacity is not “power supply.” Even if capacity was synonymous with power supply, Germany’s entire generation capacity is a lot larger than its 41 GW of solar.

I completely disagree with you. You just need to read farther to understand the point she is trying to make: China wasn’t on board with trying to stop CAGW but now they are. Here’s the key sentence:

“Beijing began to position itself in a leadership role for Paris climate accord signatories…”

Here’s the way it really makes sense:

“A few years ago, China WAS considered a viable leader for the anti-climate change movement due to its voracious coal diet.” with “anti-climate change movement” referring to countries that weren’t trying to reduce emissions to prevent climate change. The quote about Beijing now taking a leadership role confirms her intent.

In regards to her statement about the 35Gw of solar she’s simply trying to show how substantial it is by noting that it’s almost equal to Germany’s entire installed solar power capacity.

I agree with you that her intent was to say that a few years ago, China could not be considered a world leader in taking action to combat climate change due to their coal consumption. And that she now thinks that China can be a leader because they have reduced their coal consumption microscopically and deployed a lot of solar panels last year.

Longtime followers of energy sector news will remember a time just a few years ago when China could now be considered a viable leader for the anti-climate change movement due to its voracious coal diet.

Change one word (now to not), actually one letter and the sentence would be grammatically correct.

Followed up with:

But the nation’s coal consumption has been in free fall since 2013…

The National Geographic reports a 35 GW increase in solar power capacity – equivalent to Germany’s entire power supply – in just 2016.

And China can now now be considered a viable leader for the anti-climate change movement… Setting aside the fact that China’s coal consumption hasn’t free fallen and the 35 GW of solar is insignificant relative to China’s electricity consumption.

I don’t think she writes as poorly as you do. However, I think she simply has a manifest ignorance of the subject matter.

The US has, both in terms of its military and economic capabilities, since been in gradual decline since the end of the Cold War. But this decline has not been accompanied by any parallel ascendancy of note on the part of the rest of the world, either individually or collectively.

Yet a quick Google search shows that China’s per capital GDP has increased 4X, and India’s by 2X, since 1990. If that isn’t “of note” they must set a pretty high bar.

Mr. Ritter is referring to the “parallel ascendancy of note on the part of the rest of the world, either individually or collectively,” to take the United States’ place as the “indispensable” nation in NATO or global climate agreements.

Despite their economic growth, neither Red China nor India has the capacity or willingness to become the “indispensable” nation.

I suspect China may not count the “coal” used in its coal gasification plants in Inner Mongolia. Yet those plants emit more CO2 than actually burning the coal would do. The way to check on China’s actual emissions is by that satellite sent up a year or two ago. Funny that we haven’t heard from it much lately.

It must have come as a surprise, then, when fossil fuel companies came together to lobby the Trump White House not to tear up the pact. A pro-Paris alliance that included Cheniere Energy, Exxon Mobil, and even coal companies like Cloud Peak and Peabody pleaded with the Trump administration in support of the agreement before he decided to withdraw.

There are two sets of motivations here.
The coal companies did, in fact, advocate that America keep its seat at the table. link
The oil companies, on the other hand, own natural gas and would be only too happy to see more restrictions on coal so they could sell more gas. link

The coal company stance sounds a lot like appeasement. It’s a bad strategy.

I think that Ritter has some good points, but this phrase bothers me:
“… the notion of exceptionalism has been superseded by a more transactional concept of fairness…”
Since when did “exceptionalism” mean paying for everyone else while they complain about how we do not do enough and do too much, all in the same breath? Besides, we have been hearing for the past 8 years about how UN-exceptional we are, how presumptuous we are, and how we should be just like every other country (except for abortion, but that is a whole other can of worms). Shouldn’t all the leftists and non-Americans be rejoicing that the American “bully” is stepping back?
All the special snowflakes talk about is how everything should be “fair”, how our “evil” country is standing in the way of utopia, and how patriarchy/paternalism/colonialism is the root of all evil. Well, paying for everything is patriarchal/paternalistic/colonialist. So is asserting that we know best. We need to get out of the way so that other countries can have a turn. The U.S. just messes everything up and someone else should be running the show. So why the fuss? Here’s their chance to show their superiority!
That last part was sarcasm.

By continuing to build coal-fired plants China can sustain a 24 hour/day workforce even as they sell solar power to their competition. They’re not stupid. I would also not be amazed to learn they don’t have a single lash-up grid like we have in the US, but regional isolated power plants with critical redundancy and so will be protected from cascading effects from EMP blasts or terrorist/military attacks on the infrastructure. Then there are all those dams they building in the mountains above India.

Donald Trump ….. should remember that withdrawing from the COP21 won’t undo the market forces it has helped unleash.

Waaaa? Market forces? Unleashed? Is Edens on drugs? The “green” energy industry was always a bogus one, propped up by governments and by an ideology which is anti-Western, anti-free market, anti-growth, and anti-human. This is their last gasp. They’re doomed, and they know it.

Western observers argue whether China can still be regarded as a Marxist state — if it ever was.
In some respects now it resembles the relatively unadulterated capitalism of the late 19th century Britain or early 20th century US.
IPCC climate change™science and Marxism have a lot in common in that both are model-based and seem to appeal to the same totalitarian instincts:
‘Marx was seen, and saw himself, as “the Darwin of society”: as the originator of a historical science to match Darwin’s biological science. He provided his certainties in terms of proven theory. The contract betwwen his own and Darwin’s methods is very striking, and indeed Marx saw this himself — referring rather patronizingly to Darwin’s “crude English empiricism.” By this he meant no more than the perfectly true circumstance that Darwin accumulated facts before developing his theory, as against the supposedly superior method Marx derived from his German academic background, of inventing the theory first and then finding the facts to support it’ (Robert Conquest Reflections on a Ravaged Century). https://zfgbbmhhki.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/download-0393048187-reflections-on-a-ravaged-century.pdf

I think China is best understood as a reformed and improved (yes, improved) version of what is essentially the same government they’ve had for the last 2000 years. Since we love to focus on personalities, we get swept away in thinking of China as being run by Emperors (plugging them into our historical Romanesque paradigm) without fully realizing that the Chinese Government has *Always* been a huge, faceless, but incredibly powerful Bureaucracy. Whether you call the nominal head an “Emperor”, a “Chairman”, or a “Premier”, he’s always just been a front man for the men behind the scenes who actually pull all the strings.

“Marxism” is of interest to them if it helps them to retain power. “Capitalism” is also completely acceptable, as long as the ruling class can retain power. In fact, they prefer capitalism because they understand that Wealth IS Power, and they laugh at the idiots in the west who will impoverish themselves for ideology. “Ideology” is a western obsession, the Chinese know that Power is All, and all of their efforts will always be focused on gaining and maintaining the same.

China has had 2000 years of practice at this kind of Government, not a surprise that they’ve gotten quite good at it.

“One should never enter into a negotiation one is not willing to walk away from.”

Only a brain addled leftist could think this was anything other than common sense that everyone takes for granted.

When you are NOT willing to walk away, then you empower the other side to act up and treat you like dirt, because they know that you’re a lot more desperate for the deal than they are. And the instant they are sure of that, they’ve already beaten you. Kind of like how the North Koreans have acted since always. Or the Palestinians.

If you are going to reference the BP report, there are a few facts in it about coal worth considering:

• Global coal consumption fell by 53 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe), or 1.7%, the second successive annual decline. The largest declines in coal consumption were seen in the US (-33 mtoe, an 8.8% fall) and China (-26 mtoe, -1.6%). Coal consumption in the UK more than halved (down 52.5%, or 12 mtoe) to its lowest level in our records.
• Coal’s share of global primary energy consumption fell to 28.1%, the lowest share since 2004.
• World coal production fell by 6.2%, or 231 mtoe, the largest decline on record. China’s production fell by 7.9% or 140 mtoe, also a record decline. US production fell by 19% or 85 mtoe.

Spencer Dale’s analysis on Coal also mentions:

“The fortunes of coal appear to have taken a decisive break from the past. This shift largely reflects structural factors: the increasing availability and competitiveness of natural gas and renewables, combined with government and societal pressure to shift towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels.”

“A particularly striking example of this long-run movement away from coal was here in the UK, where the hike in global coal prices was amplified by the increase in the UK’s Carbon Price Floor in 2015. As a result, the UK’s relationship with coal almost completed an entire cycle: with the UK’s last three underground coal mines closing, consumption falling back to where it was roughly 200 years ago around the time of the industrial revolution, and the UK power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year.”

The London Times also quotes Mr Spencer as downplaying the likelihood of Trump reviving US coal, saying US coal decline was not from regulation, but the influence of shale gas ‘unless you do something to stop shale gas, which doesn’t appear to be what the administration intends to do, I find it hard to see how that trend could change’

And finally, note China has now banned 28 of its 31 provinces from permitting new coap power projects

Poor Griff, paid to argue that all trends going in the way his handlers desire, will always continue.
Right now nat gas is cheaper than coal, that won’t always be the case. Indeed, according to David, it has already started to reverse.
At some point in time, the situation will reverse, and nat gas plants will start closing in favor of coal plants.
That’s just how the world works.

I have a lot of time on my hands (too much!) and an interest in climate and renewables… as an amateur.

I’m not even a member of any political party or green group.

Is this site open to comments from all or from those of a certain viewpoint only?

It would be perfectly reasonable for you to make this a one viewpoint only site with non-skeptic views blocked. On the other side of this debate I can think of arctic sea ice sites where the skeptic viewpoint is blocked and the Guardian is over zealous in removing skeptic views as off topic….

(If there’s a private channel I can reach you on to assure you I’m in good faith? I’ve even considered there might be an article I could write for you…)

A pity then that – based on your track record of mendacity such as lying about the qualifications of experts your handlers have told you to discredit, massively distorting the figures for renewable energy production and the quantity of polar ice – nobody believes a single thing you post.

Speaking of which, have you apologised to Dr, Crockford for maliciously lying about her scientific credentials yet?

Griff “Is this site open to comments from all or from those of a certain viewpoint only?”

Clearly Griff, your comments which are contrary to the leanings of most here are published, so why even ask such a non-sensical question? This site is far more open than warmist/renewable fan boy sites , where comments I make are routinely deleted/refused.

Natural gas will not remain this cheap for very long. At $2.50/mcf coal is competitive with natural gas. Coal’s “demise” was largely due to the brief plunge in gas prices below $2.00/mcf. Gas has been back over $3.00/mcf for quite a while now and will likely reach the $4.00-$4.50/mcf range in a few years.

The plunge in gas prices was the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” triggering several bankrupties, most notably Peabody Energy. American coal companies have reorganized and/or acquired assets from bankruptcies are already growing again:

Coal exports for the first quarter of 2017 were 58% higher than in the same quarter last year, with steam coal exports increasing by 6 million short tons (MMst). Coal producers that have completed bankruptcy reorganizations and companies that purchased bankrupt assets have increased both exports and production in 2017. EIA expects growth in coal exports to slow in the coming months, with exports for all of 2017 forecast at 72 MMst, 11 MMst (19%) above the 2016 level. The increase in coal exports contributes to an expected 8% increase in coal production in 2017.

Speaking of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Every year congressional Republicans and Democrats put on a baseball game with the proceeds going to charity. Yesterday a gunman attacked the Republicans as they practiced. According to witnesses he asked whether the congressmen were Republicans or Democrats before opening fire.

“…the world remains incapable of providing any viable option to American leadership.”

Incapable or unwilling? What nation wants to lead if that means doing only what the world wants you to do while you provide the largest share of the funding? Who else would be that gullible? In nature, the leader gets to decide where the herd goes. But Trump changed direction and the rest of the herd refused to follow. A leader that is not allowed to change direction is not really a leader at all. He is simply following from the front.